This is a name I have known of for many years. He is a British writer on military affairs, widely read, and mentioned by nearly every writer on the Second World War. So when I saw his " History of the Second World War" at the town yard sale I picked it up.
Interesting reading, as much for the quirks of the author, as anything else. In his descriptions of battles he pays good attention to the numbers of men and tanks deployed by each side. Men are just men, but all the tanks are described as "gun-tanks". This odd phrase suggests the existence of "no-gun-tanks" but who in their right mind would bring such a vehicle to a battle? He might be an old artillery man, to whom only pieces with long barrels are "guns", anything with a short barrel is a "howitzer". There were a lot of tanks armed with really stubby sawed off main guns in those days. He might be attempting to discount a large number of very light armored vehicles that only carried machine guns. But "gun-tank" is a Liddell-Hart phrase, I never encountered it elsewhere. Nor does he ever explain why he uses the phrase.
He also is a great believer in establishments. Every unit in an army has a piece of paper (the establishment) which lists the number of men, tanks, guns, and other equipment the unit is supposed to have. After some hard fighting few units retained their "establishment', t hey took casulties and were under strength. It's clear that Liddell-Hart thought committing a unit to battle without it's full establishment was military malpractice. Well, when push comes to shove, units are ordered out to fight whether they are up to strength on not.
Quirky he may be, but it's worth reading him just to know what he said, rather than what his detractors (which are many) had to say about him.
No comments:
Post a Comment